When I worked on DB2-LUW, we had to write our own atomic implementation. Ours worked on many different types of hardware, operating systems, and compilers, so was quite representative, and matches the capabilities of the now “new” C++ interfaces. Some of that correspondence is not a surprise, since we provided our implementation to the xlC compiler team, who was advocating against sequentially-consistent being the only option. That was a choice that would have penalized PowerPC significantly. The compiler guys were on the standards sub-committee for std::atomic, and were able to reference our cross platform implementation to advocate for the ordering variations that they also wanted.
It was not terribly easy to implement the DB2 atomics. We used compiler builtins when available, inline assembly in some other cases, and plain old assembly in other cases. Even in cases where the hardware was the same, we were often using different compilers, but even if the compilers were the same (i.e.: intel compiler on both Linux and Windows), there would be differences that had to be accounted for. On top of that, we also supported both 32-bit and 64-bit targets in those days (thankfully having ditched our 16-bit client support by that point in time.) Having 32-bit targets meant that we have to use a mutex based implementation for 64-bit atomics on some platforms. You’d have instructions like cmpxchg8b on intel, and the option of using 64 bit instructions for sparcv9 32-bit targets, and csg instructions for 32-bit zLinux, but even if you could use them, additional care was required because 8 byte alignment was needed for mutexes and 32-bit allocators didn’t always provide that.
I’d assume that DB2 now only supports 64-bit targets, which cuts half of the platform variants out of the picture.
With the atomic support built into C++ now, the complexity of building a cross platform solution is now reduced considerably. One still has to be aware of memory ordering, and all the complexities required to build lock free algorithms, but at least the basic infrastructure is now made trivial.
Since my history with atomic types predates std::atomic, I thought it would be interesting to look at acq/rel/cst variations of some basic std::atomic operations and see what the generated assembly looks like. I only have ARM and X64 machines available to me at the moment, which meant that I can’t see what a PowerPC, IA64, sparc, or SGI compiler generates.
My test code included a couple load variations:
int loadv( int & i32 )
{
return i32;
}
int load( std::atomic & i32 )
{
return i32.load();
}
int load_acq( std::atomic & i32 )
{
return i32.load( std::memory_order_acquire );
}
int load_cst( std::atomic & i32 )
{
return i32.load( std::memory_order_seq_cst );
}
Initially I had made the atomic object global, but the generated assembly on ARM for a global variable was ugly and distracting, so switching to a plain old parameter made things easier to read.
On intel, this is what we get (trimming out post ‘ret’ garbage from the objdump of each function):
0000000000000000 <loadv(int&)>: 0: mov (%rdi),%eax 2: ret 0000000000000010 <load(std::atomic&)>: 10: mov (%rdi),%eax 12: ret 0000000000000020 <load_acq(std::atomic&)>: 20: mov (%rdi),%eax 22: ret 0000000000000030 <load_cst(std::atomic&)>: 30: mov (%rdi),%eax 32: ret
We already have .acq semantics for intel loads, as it is mostly ordered already (my recollection is that only a store-load pair can be reordered on intel.) It is interesting that std::memory_order_seq_cst doesn’t require any MFENCE or LFENCE instructions. Effectively, this lack of additional fencing actually gives us an implicit definition of std::memory_order_seq_cst, but let’s comment on that afterwards.
On ARM we have:
0000000000000000 <loadv(int&)>: 0: ldr w0, [x0] 4: ret 0000000000000010 <load(std::atomic&)>: 10: ldar w0, [x0] 14: ret 0000000000000020 <load_acq(std::atomic&)>: 20: ldar w0, [x0] 24: ret 0000000000000030 <load_cst(std::atomic&)>: 30: ldar w0, [x0] 34: ret
We have plain old load instruction for a non-atomic load, so it seems reasonable to guess that ldar means a load with acquire semantics. Before looking that up, let’s look at the assembly for some store variations, using the following code:
void storev( int & i32, int v )
{
i32 = v;
}
void store( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
i32.store( v );
}
void store_rel( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
i32.store( v, std::memory_order_release );
}
void store_cst( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
i32.store( v, std::memory_order_seq_cst );
}
On intel, we get:
0000000000000040 <storev(int&, int)>: 40: mov %esi,(%rdi) 42: ret 0000000000000050 <store(std::atomic&, int)>: 50: xchg %esi,(%rdi) 52: ret 0000000000000060 <store_rel(std::atomic&, int)>: 60: mov %esi,(%rdi) 62: ret 0000000000000070 <store_cst(std::atomic&, int)>: 70: xchg %esi,(%rdi) 72: ret
So, a plain old MOV instruction is equivalent to a store with .rel semantics, whereas a std::memory_order_seq_cst (the default atomic semantics for store) requires an implicit LOCK prefix. How about ARM:
0000000000000040 <storev(int&, int)>: 40: str w1, [x0] 44: ret 0000000000000050 <store(std::atomic&, int)>: 50: stlr w1, [x0] 54: ret 0000000000000060 <store_rel(std::atomic&, int)>: 60: stlr w1, [x0] 64: ret 0000000000000070 <store_cst(std::atomic&, int)>: 70: stlr w1, [x0] 74: ret
We see that the ARM load w/ acquire and store w/ release instructions use a special instruction, also providing cst semantics for those operations.
The ARM reference manual describes these memory ordered load/store instructions and their semantics:
- LDAR Load-acquire register
- STLR Store-release register
- Load-Acquire and Store-Release instructions
This matches what we’d expect from a modern instruction set, very much like the ld.acq and st.rel instructions that we had on IA64.
Now let’s look at one more atomic operation, a fetch-and-add:
int fetch_add( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
return i32.fetch_add( v );
}
int fetch_add_rel( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
return i32.fetch_add( v, std::memory_order_release );
}
int fetch_add_acq( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
return i32.fetch_add( v, std::memory_order_acquire );
}
int fetch_add_cst( std::atomic & i32, int v )
{
return i32.fetch_add( v, std::memory_order_seq_cst );
}
On intel we have:
0000000000000080 <fetch_add(std::atomic&, int)>: 80: mov %esi,%eax 82: lock xadd %eax,(%rdi) 86: ret 0000000000000090 <fetch_add_rel(std::atomic&, int)>: 90: mov %esi,%eax 92: lock xadd %eax,(%rdi) 96: ret 00000000000000a0 <fetch_add_acq(std::atomic&, int)>: a0: mov %esi,%eax a2: lock xadd %eax,(%rdi) a6: ret 00000000000000b0 <fetch_add_cst(std::atomic&, int)>: b0: mov %esi,%eax b2: lock xadd %eax,(%rdi) b6: ret
There’s no implicit LOCK prefix for xadd, so we see it used explicitly now. On ARM, unfortunately, looking at assembly listings is no longer sufficient:
0000000000000080 <fetch_add(std::atomic&, int)>: 80: mov x2, x0 84: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 88: mov w0, w1 8c: mov x29, sp 90: mov x1, x2 94: bl 0 <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel> 98: ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 9c: ret 00000000000000a0 <fetch_add_rel(std::atomic&, int)>: a0: mov x2, x0 a4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! a8: mov w0, w1 ac: mov x29, sp b0: mov x1, x2 b4: bl 0 <__aarch64_ldadd4_rel> b8: ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 bc: ret 00000000000000c0 <fetch_add_acq(std::atomic&, int)>: c0: mov x2, x0 c4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! c8: mov w0, w1 cc: mov x29, sp d0: mov x1, x2 d4: bl 0 <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq> d8: ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 dc: ret 00000000000000e0 <fetch_add_cst(std::atomic&, int)>: e0: mov x2, x0 e4: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! e8: mov w0, w1 ec: mov x29, sp f0: mov x1, x2 f4: bl 0 <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel> f8: ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16 fc: ret
We do see that the std::atomic default fetch_add behaviour matches std::memory_order_seq_cst (in this case, an operation with both acquire and release sematics, as was the case on intel due to the LOCK prefix.) We can’t see exactly what happens under the covers for those operations, as there’s a branch-and-link instruction to some system provided interfaces.
Here’s what gdb says these functions do:
(gdb) disassemble __aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel Dump of assembler code for function __aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel: 0x00000000004008f0 <+0>: bti c => 0x00000000004008f4 <+4>: adrp x16, 0x420000 <__libc_start_main@got.plt> 0x00000000004008f8 <+8>: ldrb w16, [x16, #45] 0x00000000004008fc <+12>: cbz w16, 0x400908 <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel+24> 0x0000000000400900 <+16>: ldaddal w0, w0, [x1] 0x0000000000400904 <+20>: ret 0x0000000000400908 <+24>: mov w16, w0 0x000000000040090c <+28>: ldaxr w0, [x1] 0x0000000000400910 <+32>: add w17, w0, w16 0x0000000000400914 <+36>: stlxr w15, w17, [x1] 0x0000000000400918 <+40>: cbnz w15, 0x40090c <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq_rel+28> 0x000000000040091c <+44>: ret End of assembler dump. (gdb) disassemble __aarch64_ldadd4_rel Dump of assembler code for function __aarch64_ldadd4_rel: 0x00000000004008c0 <+0>: bti c 0x00000000004008c4 <+4>: adrp x16, 0x420000 <__libc_start_main@got.plt> 0x00000000004008c8 <+8>: ldrb w16, [x16, #45] 0x00000000004008cc <+12>: cbz w16, 0x4008d8 <__aarch64_ldadd4_rel+24> 0x00000000004008d0 <+16>: ldaddl w0, w0, [x1] 0x00000000004008d4 <+20>: ret 0x00000000004008d8 <+24>: mov w16, w0 0x00000000004008dc <+28>: ldxr w0, [x1] 0x00000000004008e0 <+32>: add w17, w0, w16 0x00000000004008e4 <+36>: stlxr w15, w17, [x1] 0x00000000004008e8 <+40>: cbnz w15, 0x4008dc <__aarch64_ldadd4_rel+28> 0x00000000004008ec <+44>: ret End of assembler dump. (gdb) disassemble __aarch64_ldadd4_acq Dump of assembler code for function __aarch64_ldadd4_acq: 0x0000000000400890 <+0>: bti c 0x0000000000400894 <+4>: adrp x16, 0x420000 <__libc_start_main@got.plt> 0x0000000000400898 <+8>: ldrb w16, [x16, #45] 0x000000000040089c <+12>: cbz w16, 0x4008a8 <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq+24> 0x00000000004008a0 <+16>: ldadda w0, w0, [x1] 0x00000000004008a4 <+20>: ret 0x00000000004008a8 <+24>: mov w16, w0 0x00000000004008ac <+28>: ldaxr w0, [x1] 0x00000000004008b0 <+32>: add w17, w0, w16 0x00000000004008b4 <+36>: stxr w15, w17, [x1] 0x00000000004008b8 <+40>: cbnz w15, 0x4008ac <__aarch64_ldadd4_acq+28> 0x00000000004008bc <+44>: ret End of assembler dump.
There’s some sort of runtime determined switching, based on program global variable, probably initialized during pre-main setup. If that variable is not set, then we use one of the following Atomic add on word or doubleword in memory instructions
- LDADDA and LDADDAL load from memory with acquire semantics.
- LDADDL and LDADDAL store to memory with release semantics.
- (LDADD has neither acquire nor release semantics.)
It looks like these hybrid fetch-and-add instructions are optional, also only provided on ARMv8.1-A or later. The fallback looks very familiar to a PowerPC programmer, and are load-with-reservation/store-conditional like instructions (i.e.: lwarx/stwcx.), but also include built in memory ordering semantics, which is nice (so we don’t need any supplemental isync/lwsync’s to get the desired memory ordering.)
Some final thoughts.
We saw that store with release semantics was a plain old intel store instruction, whereas store with cst included a full memory barrier (the lock xchg). My recollection is that store/load was the only reorderable pair of memory operations on intel, which was why we were able to construct a spinlock using xchg (lock implied when the destination was a memory operand), but could use a plain old store for the spinlock release.
We can visualize the spinlock acquire/release like a cage that is porous only from the outside:
loads/stores (dumb tourists)
ATOMIC W/ ACQUIRE (cage wall)
Loads and stores that can’t get out of the cage (lions and tigers)
RELEASE (cage wall)
loads/stores (dumb tourists)
You want to ensure that the loads and stores (the lions and tigers) that are in the cage can’t get out, but if somebody is foolish enough to go into the cage from the outside, you are willing to let them get eaten. On intel the release-store is enough to ensure that preceding loads and stores are complete before anybody can see the side effect of the lock release operation. On PPC we needed isync and lwsync to help guard the cage walls. It looks like we need explicit acquire release semantics on ARM to guard those walls too, but have nice instruction variants to do that.
We’ve seen enough to give meaning to std::memory_order_seq_cst. It would have made more sense to try to look it up first, but where is the fun in that. Instead, we’ve seen that:
- loads with std::memory_order_seq_cst have acquire semantics,
- stores with std::memory_order_seq_cst have both release semantics and acquire semantics.
- Operations that have both load and store aspects of their operations (like fetch-and-add), because they are stores, also have both release and acquire semantics for std::memory_order_seq_cst.
On Intel we saw std::memory_order_seq_cst for hybrid (load/store) operations was achieved with an explicit LOCK prefix (bidirectional fence), and on ARM with instructions like LDADDAL that have both release and acquire semantics by construction.
